PROHIBITION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7180, 3 June 1891, Page 4

PROHIBITION.

While the question of Prohibition is so prominently before the public, the follow-' ing article, taken from the Church News, and giving, we presume, the views of a large section of the Church upon the licensing laws, will be read with interest :— The victories achieved by the Prohibitionists of Sydenham and elsewhere in the recent elections of Licensing Committees, bring the Christian Church in New Zealand face to face with an all-important and very difficult problem with which it is necessary that the Church should deal. Like all other questions of the day, it presents two sides for the consideration of everyone who would seriously study it with a view to formulating a judgment which shall stand firm in practical life. Eight-thinking people will at once allow that under the present licensing system vast and terrible evils have arisen — evils which affect the whole fabric of society, and hinder moßt materially the progress of religion and the prosperity of the people. The difficulty which confronts us, therefore, is, how can these evils best be restrained, and even made to disappear ? The Prohibitionists affirm that radical and coercive measures must be adopted. The motto of their newspaper is, " New times demand new measures." They stait with the assumption that a deadly foe has | to be met and conquered, and they are prepared to win the victory at almost any price rather than allow " the devil in solution" to work his wicked will by means of alcoholic methods. The tendency of this new movement is clearly in the direction of adopting extreme views of both belief and action. And this must inevitably lead to the recognition of certain principles which are open to question. We have a most earnest desire for a large reduction of the drinking habits of every community; yet we cannot but think that the principles underlying the otherwise noble endeavour of the Prohibitionists are to some -extent faulty. I The evils of intemperance are everywhere plain enough, and any legitimate effort to bring about a better condition of the people in this reßpect is deserving of practical sympathy. But in every endeavour for the amelioration of the ills of life the first consideration is one of sound judgment. No doubt the number of public-houses to be found in any Colonial town is far in excess of the requirement of its citizens, and we should vote unreaervedlyagainatany increase in the number of such houses. This appearß to us to be a quite legitimate action. But to do as the Prohibitionistß of Sydenham, for example, propose to do, namely, to close all the licensed houses in that Borough—for each and all of the five prohibition candidates at the recent election pledged themselves to this course, and were returned on this ticket — appears to us to be a somewhat hasty action, and to rest on an insufficient basis of moral rectitude. The Prohibitionists of Sydenham had a clear majority of three-fifths at the poll which returned their representatives. They have, therefore, freely expreßßed themselves upon the advisability of prohibition becoming the order of the day in that Borough. We do not question in the least the sincerity of purpose of this majority : we are thinking now only of the fundamental right or wrong of such a majority in enforcing their views upon a very respectible minority of their neighbours, in spite of those neighbours' declaration given at the election that they were decidedly opposed to the change which the prohibitionists have set their minds upon bringing about in that borough. It is by no means an easy problem to solve. In the first place it is open to question whether a majority of citizens are justified in imposing their will upon the minority in any question affecting established institutions. Liberty of conscience is surely the heritage of all alike. It matters not what the assumed evil may be. Suppose, for example, that by a large majority of the Christians of Sydenham it were determined that a local Freethought Lyceum should be closed at their will, on the assumed ground that it is destructive of the beßt interests of the people, would such an act be justifiable, even with the concurrence of Parliament ? Or put it the other way about, and is it not in either case the beginning of tyranny ? It would be to return to a state of things which happily belongs only to past history. If prohibition is to be enforced, what is to become of vested interests ? Are the publicans to be despoiled of their property without compensation ? And would not the closing of public-houses be to create one law for the rich and another for the poor ? The man who is well todo, and has a comfortable home, may buy his cask of beer without hindrance, but ho who lives from hand to mouth, and knows not the comfort of home, must not be allowed to buy his glass! Where is the equity of all this ? In the next place the aim of the Prohibitionists is to put a stop to all drinking of intoxicating liquors by means of force of action calculated to restrain men from gaining access to them. But is it possible to force men to abstain from drink in this way ? The removal of the temptation to enter open bars may lead only to more secret and subtle temptations to drink. Moral reform is not to be effected wholly or chiefly in this kind of way. There is something of truth in the saying that people cannot be made moral by Act of Parliament. Of course by means of Buch an Act the innocent can be protected to some extent from the evil of immoral men ; but as yet Parliamentary legislation has done but little to " overcome evil with good." Intemperance in drink is no new feature in human life, and its overthrow ! can be effected only by an educative power j which shall prevail by love. The ultraenthusiast no doubt thinks otherwise. But it is significant for these times in which we live that St Paul and St Peter and St John, who wrote so much in their epistles against the sin of drunkenness and its attendant consequences in this world and the next, should, even under the guidance of Divine inspiration, have had their minds absolutely free from. any thought or desire of Buch action as should remove strong drink out of the teach of men. And why boP I Very probably because inspiration led them j tp .see that temperance and drunkenness | are matters affecting faith, and faith of its ' very nature cannot be coerced. ' Coercion , is only possible in dealing with the exact 1 sciences. A cynic, for example, may hold that virtue and happiness are only vain dreams, that affection ia > only self-intereab

and human appetite, that nobility of life is self-enjoyment. You cannot; coerce him to change his views in the same way that you can convince him that two and two make four. You might show hip that Christ came to implant a new life in the heart of man, but you cannot prevent him from accepting and acting upon a belief that embitters his life and dwarfs his faculties. It should not be forgotten, too, that in order to overturn the world, Christ resolutely rejected all the advantages and all the orthodox weapons constructed by human wisdom that the world had relied upon up to His day. The temperament of the present age would do well to take account of this profound fact. It Bhould be remembered also that even if alcohol is an agency of Satan — which we are not prepared to admit— Satan is, and always has been, allowed to use his agencies at all times for the teat of manhood. There is no virtue recognieed in the New Testament apart from an alien power outside of man to thwart it and possibly to' convert it into vice. Satan desires to bsye men that he may sift them as *heat, and no man ia exempt from the trial of this permitted winnowing of the worthless from the valuable in himself. Temptation to evil cannot be abolished by any art or device of man. We are by no means in favour of the public bar in its present shape and position. It might be more preferable and suitable to the wants of a community to license houses where comfortable rooms could be provided, in which men might order their glass of ale, after the manner in which their wives now obtain refreshment in places were tea is dispensed by the cup. At the present moment, however, we are not prepared to deal with such a proposal. We are concerned now only with the assumption freely expressed that the closing of publichouses will put a atop to drinking habits. In reply we say that to assume this may be only to put a veil before one's eyes. Demand will ever create a supply, and the laßt condition of a prohibited city may be worse than the first. Working Men's Clubs, and other Clubs, which will be only too readily conceived and initiated, together with illicit supplies, may be no better for the morals of a corcmunity than the present system of public bars. Is there not possibly a more excellent way ? Is it utterly impracticable to amend the present licensed system? There is more to be said than we have now space to say it in in favour of a thorough revision of the Licensing Acb, whereby provision might be made for granting licenses to really trustworthy applicants with really suitable premises, and tor an actual inspection of licensed houseß by a body of inspectors who shall give their whole time and attention to this work. The present licensing system is responsible for more of the evil drinking of the time that the prohibitionists are wont to think. To bring about reform in this way might be to cleanse the fountain, and so to purify to some extent the stream of human tendency towards intemperance.